ABP, thanks for providing yet another Baptist perspective on this issue.

Mr Langley connects seemingly distinct issues in his opinion piece just above. While I think he is terribly confused on both issues he splices together, self-defense and health care, I believe there is an underlying connection afterall.

First, Mr. Langley seems very confused on the issues surrounding rights, the moral authority to use violence, and the role of the Christian in a fallen world. It can be argued from a Christian perspective as John Locke did in his *Second Treatise on Civil Government* that God has provided the world and its resources for humans to enjoy and to use for their survival and betterment. We have been entrusted to care for the physical world, for ourselves, and for future generations. We lost that dominion when we sinned so that all world systems have been corrupted including human nature.

So, given our fallen human nature, what is the most effective and most respectful legal and economic system that we humans can employ? As Locke proposes, it is to allow each person and his family to carve out a private sphere over which they are sovereign as long as "enough and as good" is left for others. In other words, private property. Humans informally enter into a social contract that enjoins each person to respect the private arena of another as long as the recognition is mutual. 'Rights' are warrants to use violence to protect this private sphere recognized by all who desire the same respect be accorded them.

So, do people have a God-given right to gun others down who willfully and knowingly violate their rights? If you take Locke's Christian account of rights seriously as did the Founders of the United States so much so that our entire legal, economic, and political system is based on Locke's political philosophy, the answer is yes. Did Jesus ever allow for self-defense? Consider his admonition to the disciples to carry swords in Luke 22:36-38. There is no indication that Jesus was a pacifist. He clearly allowed for the state to enforce the rights of individuals when he sanctioned the power of the state as he famously said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." in Matthew 22:21.

A key move in Locke's philosophy is that the state has no power apart from what is delegated to it by the people. Consider the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly relies on this political theory. So, if the state can use violence to capture and punish, so can individuals if the state is not in a position to enforce the social contract at a particular moment such as when a crime is being committed. Such violence as Mr. Langley recounts in the opening to his column is simply the right to self-defense being carried out when the state, which usually carries out this function, is not able to do so. If individuals or the state acting on their behalf in normal circumstances were not able to use violence to enforce the social contract, then evil would completely consume the earth. This point is made in Romans 13 as the magistrate is authorized to use violence to establish justice.

As for socialized medicine, I do see a parallel but not as Mr. Langley does. Do people have a right to health care? Well, sort of. Again, relying on Locke, people have a right to control their own body, which is their property, and they have a right to enter into agreements with those who are trained to provide medical services. But they have no right to force others to pay for the services which they receive any more than I have the right to use violence to force Mr. Langley to pay for my supper tonight. Of course, people want to preserve their right to choose their doctor and to pursue costly treatments if necessary in order to protect their own life or the lives of their loved ones. What socialized medicine would do would be to deny these basic human rights in order to forcibly re-distribute health care from the elderly middle and upper class folks to poor people. While many Christians and others freely donate money to such efforts as St. Jude Hospital in Memphis, it is another matter entirely for some people who have fewer resources to band together and direct the coercive powers of the state to violate innocent persons' property rights and deny them medical care, so that those in power might gain more medical services than they would be justly entitled to.

A part of the comparison to Britain on the part of (usually) anti-reform pundits is an erroneous one. Britain, like Canada, has a single payer option; the House's version of the Bill for health care reform does not employ that option. Even the claim that "government is taking over healthcare" is not accurate, and is used most often as a scare tactic.

Providing access to quality and affordable healthcare is more than a right--it's also pro-life. (Don't come back at me with this "Death Panel" nonesense--that too is a scare tactic--the part of the bill these folks take out of context is a section in which Medicaire will provide a refund for folks who want--choose--to see a lawyer to discuss writing up a living will, which no one would argue is a good idea given all of the technical laws regarding end-of-life care.)

How can we protest against abortion while denouncing a reform bill that helps preserve lives after people are born? I'd rather get taxes at 70% to provide healthcare for the impoverished than fight for some sense of individual "wealth" that is God's money to begin with.

*I'd rather get taxed at 70% to provide healthcare than to ...

President Obama wants a single payer system, and he wants to move us to that model. So if you like your current health insurance, be afraid. Now if my insurance company denies my claim, I can always shop for a new insurance company. Yet if the government takes over health care and puts private insurance out of business, then when the government refuses to cover a service what can we do. . . nothing. Government, not doctors, will make these decisions. When they refuse coverage it will be a death sentence. Obama says he wants to save money! Denying coverage is the best way to do this. The president also wants to take the power to deny coverage away from congress and put it in the white house. Now why should a white house death panel listen to you when you say that you your loved one deserve coverage? You will not vote for them, and they will be worried about young peoples votes and deficits not old people who will soon die anyway.

Lastly, we do not have a health care crisis. EVERYONE can get care by going to the ER. . . for free! Unless you want your medical services to be like the post office, call your representative and tell him or her to vote no!

Watch this video and see the truth.

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

Yes, it our responsibility as Christians to take care of people in need. But Jesus NEVER said to give your money to the government and let the government decide how to use it to help people in need. Being the hands and feet of Jesus in a lost and hurting world requires more of me than just paying my taxes. It has to be personal. It should be a matter of me looking prayerfully and diligently for prayers that I can answer, to paraphrase Kyle Matthews. Jesus was not a socialist!

All I can say is this guy is messed up theologically. If you know individuals who need health care, then as a christian- you pay for it. It is not the moral obligation of US taxpayers to provide healthcare to all citizens. It is the moral obligation of christian ministry, not taxpayers. I wish liberals would stop stealing from taxpayers so they can feel good about their Christianity. If you see a need as a Christian, you meet the need. Quit putting it of on others.

You are spot on, Dr J (as usual).

Dude, you are like way off here, man.

"Socialism, to those still brainwashed by Sen. Joseph McCarthy's legacy, is “un-American.” Why? Because, as an old colleague returning from a time in Chicago explained to me last week, the American dream is to work for yourself and your own betterment. And any attempt to make you pay even a little for someone else's health care is a violation of that dream."

Socialism is un-American, dude. Like, really, it is. And I'm not even brainwashed or anything, man. Paying our fair share is what we've been doing like, forever, man. But there has to be, like, a limit, ok? A limit to what we should pay and a limit to what the government can do. That's the difference between us and you guys, dude. Yeah, we do believe in individualism here. If you were a citizen maybe you could, like, understand what being an American is really about. But you aren't, you don't, and you, like, talk out your butt, dude. Yeah, I said but, ha ha.